Acually, not all Southerners hated lincoln. When a southern general heard about lincoln's death he said "He was the best friend the South ever had". So not all southerners hated him. Heck, I like him alot.

ole wrote: The previous quote, referring to Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, is an accurate reflection of Lincoln's priorities relative to the Union itself. But there are two things that I think are usually missed when folks quote that passage to 'prove' that slavery was not the cause of secession and war. First, that it does not alter anything that took place prior to secession, which is where we have to look for the cause of secession. And second is what I consider to be an important point that Lincoln made in his letter - "My paramount object in this struggleis to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

What an incredibly astute observation, Perry! Thanks.

ole

Thanks Ole. I may be reading too much into Lincoln's phrasing, but I don't really think so. He was usually pretty careful in his choice of words.

It's one of the many ironies of the war though, that had the North won it before 1863, slavery might have continued on for longer than it did in reality. But even if so, under Lincoln I think it also would have been put firmly on the path toward eventual extinction once the war was over.

Bighouse wrote: I beleive a war was inevitable, regardless of who led the nation. It may not have occurred at the same time in history, but eventually the issue would have had to have been resolved and resolved by force.
The assassination of Lincoln ruined the South's chances at a more amiable (if that's the right word) approach to reconstruction. Andrew Johnson was rabid about making the South pay for secession and it's "rebellion".
That's the ironic thing about Johnson though, is that he came into office breathing fire toward the South, but ended up being more of a friend than an enemy as far as white Reconstruction was concerned. I don't know that he did them, or the country, any real favors in the long run though.

On the war's inevitability, I understand the point, but I'm not sure about it one way or the other. For the most part I tend to think that the future is not foreordained, so I lean more toward thinking the war was not, in fact, inevitable, even though it can seem that way when reading about the events leading up to it. The problem with learning about something that's already happened is that in retrospect it's obvious how "inevitable" it truly was. Especially since it happened. Can't get much more inevitable than that!

But things are usually much more obvious in retrospect than they are beforehand. How many of us here for example, could have predicted all that has taken place so far this year, from politics to the weather to world events? Or even in our personal lives? If I had taken a test on the year to come, 2008, I think I would have failed, given a lot of what we've seen. Yet much of it might seem "obvious" after the fact.

Plus, when I read about or think about some of the things that took place before the war, it's almost like watching the Titanic heading toward that iceberg. You want to find yourself a time machine, transport back to the bridge that night, grab the captain by the shoulders and shake him until he listens to you. Or until they toss you over the side. (Hopefully with the time machine alongside.) But the reason why you want to do that is because you can see that a different decision here or there could have changed the outcome. They miss the iceberg, everyone lives, the Titanic does not go down as a legendary doomed ship, and no one ever hears of Leonardo DiCaprio later in the century.

The road leading to the war is a lot like that, although more involved of course. I do think a peaceful solution to the slavery question was going to be extremely difficult. Maybe even impossible. But I'm just not totally convinced. Perhaps the biggest problem they had was their unwillingness to accept the possibility that the "other side" might in fact actually be willing to go to war at some point. And also, that it would evolve into the kind of war they eventually got. Had they known all that ahead of time, or at least believed it a realistic possibility, I think it's safe to say they would have found a way to avoid it. But they weren't blessed with 20/20 foresight anymore than we are. Where's that time machine when you need it?

The captain of the TITANIC, Captain Edward J. Smith, RD, RNR, was not on the bridge the night the fatal iceberg was sighted. He was in his quarters asleep. The man in charge on the bridge was the First Officer, Lieutenant William Murdoch, RNR.

The man who sighted the iceberg was an expert lookout named Frederick Fleet. But by the time Fleet saw the iceberg and reported it to the bridge, the TITANIC was less than 500 yards from it. At the speed the ship was going, it could not be stopped in time to avoid the iceberg.

Murdoch ordered right rudder, turning the ship to port. He also ordered the engines to full astern, slowing the forward momentum. When the ship struck the iceberg a glancing blow, a gash of some 300 feet was torn into its hull . This would prove fatal. What is ironic is that the ship probably would have survived if it had run into the iceberg straight on.

But, as you said, that could not be known at the time, just as people in 1912 could not have imagined how life would be in the 21st century, and just as we cannot imagine the distant future from where we stand today.

I beleive a war was inevitable, regardless of who led the nation. It may not have occurred at the same time in history, but eventually the issue would have had to have been resolved and resolved by force.

Half of me goes along with that. Another half looks for a better result. "A house divided cannot stand. A nation cannot long endure half slave and half free." However, other than "long," there is no time limit attached to that observation. It is not a question that needs resolution this afternoon.

Lincoln believed that slavery would eventually expire from its own weight and problems. I see no indication that he was willing to press the issue -- at least not during his first term.

And I don't see "resolved by force" as an inevitable. There was no implied physical force -- just an expectation of natural, social and economic forces. Whether that could be true, we can only imagine. (And maybe argue about?)

There was going to be a clash between the sections. Whether that clash was on the floors of the House and Senate is wide open to opinion.

Lincoln's call for troops didn't happen until two days after Ft. Sumter was taken. You don't really need a link, just the dates. And, in your reading, you might also note that his call for troops was to shield Washington from possible invasion. Aside from militia and military-fashioned marching companies (all of which were of questionable loyalty), there were somewhere near 1,000 regulars in the area (escapees from Texas).

One might fault Lincoln for not jacking up military preparedness when he took office in the face of threats against Sumter and Pickens and all the seizures that had already taken place. There are at least two reasons for that: 1) the House went home after his inauguration and wasn't scheduled to sit again until December, and 2) any such action would certainly give the secesh a stronger argument. So he was sitting on his hands until Ft. Sumter was taken by force. (You may believe that he provoked it, if you'd like.) It remains that nothing was done until the batteries around Charleston Harbor attempted to level Ft. Sumter.

Sometimes I like to ponder if Lincoln had lived out his 2nd term, would the rights of persons of color had been respected by everyone and Washington, DC as well. Would their right to enfranchisement have been respected? Would the KKK have been such a significant, albeit negative, part of our history?
These are questions I pose to my students when we discuss the Civil Rights Movement, Underground RR or CW. Boy, you ought to see the smoke risin' in class then! Really gets them thinking. Puts a hurtin' on some of them!

Sometimes I like to ponder if Lincoln had lived out his 2nd term, would the rights of persons of color had been respected by everyone and Washington, DC as well. Would their right to enfranchisement have been respected? Would the KKK have been such a significant, albeit negative, part of our history?

It would be pleasant to assume that Lincoln would have worked very hard to guarantee enfranchisement of persons of color. But I don't think he would have or could have.

The people of the US, north and south, weren't ready to grant equality. Lincoln might have gotten away with the franchise for a few, and for veterans, but nowhere near all. That would take time.

Lincoln made a career of accomplishing the improbable, stroking his agitators and soothing the anxious...
That he did, but he still took his time in acting against the Constitutional protection of the institution (doing it only under his war powers) and against the will of the voters. And he did remarkable work in bringing the constituency up to acceptance, but he was ever conscious of what he could get away with at the polls. Full equality was one of those things I don't believe he could have achieved (even if he wanted to).

mikenoirot wrote: While I am a huge Lincoln fan, has anyone ever wondered, how he would have been viewed had he not been assassinated? Booth's bullet made him a martyr throughout the north. I personally believe he would have still been one of our best presidents, as he would have had a much different, and I must say better, approach to reconstruction.

I say the same thing about JFK. Undoubtedly he would have won a second term in office, but how would he be viewed today if he hadn't been in Dallas that fateful day? Had both men lived to see the end of a second term how would we be viewing them today?

If assassinaion comes at the right moment it can certainly have a positive effect on how folks view some one. Can, not will. There are those today who hate Lincoln, but there are also plenty who consider him one of the best President's in US history. You have to think that his assassination helped with that.

The southerner that was Sec of War under Buchanan purposely scattered the army and emptied out its arsenals and sent guns south during the Lincoln transition. Evidently he knew war was coming with the north. Lincoln had no desire to abolish slavery where it existed. He hated it but it was in the Constitution so he was willing to tolerate it. But he was going to confine it to the south and let the institution die of natural causes. Lincoln's 1861 innaugaration speech he held out an olive branch to the south to come back and discuss things. In return the south fired on Ft Sumter and it was on. The war was a long time coming. Compromises had been made throughout the years and not solved anything. Really wasn't any other way of dealing with it all except through war by 1861.

Lincoln in his 2nd Innaugral speech was very open to the south being reintegrated once again into the Union. He even spoke of black equal rights and voting priviledges. Booth determined at that moment to kill him. The Reconstruction would have been much kinder if Lincoln had lived. Grant and Sherman gave very lenient surrender terms to Lee and Johnston in 1865 after meeting with Lincoln and getting his post war plans. When Lincoln died, the wrath of the North was unleashed upon the South.

The one game changer idea the Radical Republicans had was to give freed slaves 40 acres and a mule. If that had been followed through, race relations would be completely different today. Slaves would have had hard assets and generated their own wealth changing the whole equation between white and blacks. Instead Johnson basically allowed slavery to be reimposed in all but name.